Google announces remedies proposal in DOJ’s search distribution case

Lee-Anne Mulholland Vice President, Regulatory Affairs at Google (GOOGL), wrote in a blog post that the company “strongly disagrees with and will appeal” the decision in the Department of Justice’s search distribution lawsuit. The company says it has filed its own proposal, based on the actual findings in the Court’s decision. “This was a decision about our search distribution contracts, so our proposed remedies are directed to that,” Mulholland said. “Browser companies like Apple (AAPL) and Mozilla should continue to have the freedom to do deals with whatever search engine they think is best for their users. The Court accepted that browser companies ‘occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.’ And for companies like Mozilla, these contracts generate vital revenue. Our proposal allows browsers to continue to offer Google Search to their users and earn revenue from that partnership. But it also provides them with additional flexibility: It would allow for multiple default agreements across different platforms (e.g., a different default search engine for iPhones and iPads) and browsing modes, plus the ability to change their default search provider at least every 12 months. Our proposal means device makers have additional flexibility in preloading multiple search engines, and preloading any Google app independently of preloading Search or Chrome. Again, this will give our partners additional flexibility and our rivals like Microsoft more chances to bid for placement. Our proposal includes a robust mechanism to ensure we comply with the Court’s order without giving the Government extensive power over the design of your online experience. We don’t propose these changes lightly. They would come at a cost to our partners by regulating how they must go about picking the best search engine for their customers. But we believe that they fully address the Court’s findings, and do so without putting Americans’ privacy and security at risk or harming America’s global technology leadership.”